Is Dragon Age really a BG successor?

November 11th, 2009, 19:38

Originally Posted by Benedict
How am I trying to rationalise against simple facts?

Let me give you an example of rationalization.

Trying to take the base classes *and* specialisations of DA and comparing them to just the base classes from the BG series, and then saying that DA has as many classes as BG. If you want to combine those then BG1/2 has around 40 classes, it's not even close.

Originally Posted by Benedict
I've not disputed that those things are differences between BG & DA, that I grant you is fact. You expressed those as ways in which DA "takes a step backwards" though, suggesting that they are differences which in some way lead to a worse game, which is surely more a matter of opinion than fact (and so more deserving of discussion rather than simple dismissal)?

Take off the fanboy glasses for a second, you're getting way too defensive for no reason. Nobody ever suggested that one game was"worse" than the other. My points were about variety and choices that aren't present in DA, and yes, they are factual. Whether or not *you* care about those things being absent is not the point.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Let me give you an example of rationalization.

Trying to take the base classes *and* specialisations of DA and comparing them to just the base classes from the BG series, and then saying that DA has as many classes as BG. If you want to combine those then BG1/2 has around 40 classes, it's not even close.

Taking BG1 that I've done some googling on, what specialisations were there beyond the base classes? It has been a decade or so since I've played it, so I'm sure that you're more familiar (and again I'm genuinely asking, not being defensive or confrontational or picking a fight, really just trying to understand your views), but googling doesn't suggest anything in the way of later specialisation. Paladin, fighter, ranger, cleric, druid, mage, thief, bard. Various multi-class combos. Mages have specialisations (but the array of skill trees for mages in DA I'd say more than covers that).

How do you get to 40 class options? Unless you're counting all the potential different levels at which you could duel class, in which case there's more differentiation in character builds in that respect I guess (although with the limited range of skills & abilities probably overall less combinations).

I could see your point comparing against say NWN2 where they've got 30 odd classes & specialist classes & any number of combinations and race specialisations which have quite significant bonuses / level penalities / spell like abilities / resistances etc, but my memory of the BGs were that they were pretty basic and (especially with the lack of skill trees and special abilities barring spells) I'd felt fairly restricted creating a character.

Take off the fanboy glasses for a second, you're getting way too defensive for no reason. Nobody ever suggested that one game was"worse" than the other. My points were about variety and choices that aren't present in DA, and yes, they are factual. Whether or not *you* care about those things being absent is not the point.

Not getting defensive, just trying to explain what I was actually asking, which still seems to be causing some trouble. You listed some factual differences, fair enough, but you also said that those differences represented a step backwards, which I read as suggesting that those differences made the game "worse" (even if there are other aspects that are better and overall there's no clear winner). Was that not what you meant? If so then this is a bit of a pointless discussion (probably is anyway).

If not, could you take off your own fanboy glasses for a moment and explain to me why *you* care about those things being absent? That's more what I'm interested in, and again this is not picking a fight, I don't want you to say what you got out of them so I can try and say you're wrong, I'm just genuinely curious to know what it is about the way that you play games and the way that you think when you're playing games that means you get value out of gameplay options in which I see no value.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Taking BG1 that I've done some googling on, what specialisations were there beyond the base classes? It has been a decade or so since I've played it, so I'm sure that you're more familiar (and again I'm genuinely asking, not being defensive or confrontational or picking a fight, really just trying to understand your views), but googling doesn't suggest anything in the way of later specialisation. Paladin, fighter, ranger, cleric, druid, mage, thief, bard. Various multi-class combos. Mages have specialisations (but the array of skill trees for mages in DA I'd say more than covers that).

How do you get to 40 class options? Unless you're counting all the potential different levels at which you could duel class, in which case there's more differentiation in character builds in that respect I guess (although with the limited range of skills & abilities probably overall less combinations).

I'm pretty sure the thread is refering to the full BG campaign, or else the title wouldn't make much sense. The specialisations didn't kick in until Shadows of Amn, here is a full list.

*Edit* Why are you having to use Google anyways? That tells me that either- 1.) You've never actually played the BG games, or- 2.) It's been so long since you've played them that you don't have a strong recollection of them. (what I believe)

Originally Posted by Benedict
Not getting defensive, just trying to explain what I was actually asking, which still seems to be causing some trouble. You listed some factual differences, fair enough, but you also said that those differences represented a step backwards, which I read as suggesting that those differences made the game "worse" (even if there are other aspects that are better and overall there's no clear winner). Was that not what you meant? If so then this is a bit of a pointless discussion (probably is anyway).

txa1265 summed it up perfectly in his last post, although you tried your hardest to rationalize against what he said as well.

Originally Posted by Benedict
If not, could you take off your own fanboy glasses for a moment and explain to me why *you* care about those things being absent? That's more what I'm interested in, and again this is not picking a fight, I don't want you to say what you got out of them so I can try and say you're wrong, I'm just genuinely curious to know what it is about the way that you play games and the way that you think when you're playing games that means you get value out of gameplay options in which I see no value.

Again, you seem to be missing the point. It's not about whether or not anyone cares if those things are there, they are just facts that I was pointing out.

I'm sorry, but in all honesty, you're the only one here who is acting like a fanboy. Why else bother to argue something like this, especially when it's been so long since you've played BG that you apparently can't even remember all the details about it? Besides, nobody was even trying to imply that one game was superior to the other.

Bottom line - A game from 2009 should be better in EVERY conceivable way than a series that was finished nearly a Decade before. DA is an improvement in some aspects, but not in all of them, that's all I was pointing out. I wasn't implying anything beyond that.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Why else bother to argue something like this

Grrrr.

As I've said many times, I'm not looking for an argument. I'm genuinely curious as to what it is about things like the additional races etc that actually made the game better.

Not because I think you're wrong and I'm right, but because you obviously got something out of a game that I simply didn't and I'm interested in what it is about the way in which you play games that means you can leverage some value out of things like that.

Well I'm not even claiming the additional races/classes made it "better". It's more about choices really, the BG games simply offered you more. I fully realize that many people don't even care about that.

Anyways, if I wanted to try to paint DA in a negative light, I would probably point to this $%&# level scaling, this sh*t is really starting to piss me off!

Originally Posted by JDR13
Well I'm not even claiming the additional races/classes made it "better". It's more about choices really, the BG games simply offered you more. I fully realize that many people don't even care about that.

Anyways, if I wanted to try to paint DA in a negative light, I would probably point to this $%&% level scaling that is really starting to piss me off!

Ah cool, think I've just misunderstood you right from the off then, I really couldn't work out what the benefits of being able to play a halfling as well were. Mind you, I've never played one of the little shits anyway, can't trust them.

The level scaling sounds a bit annoying, still early days for me though, I've barely made it through all the origins stories. Has been nice being able to play lots of different characters to get a feel for the game without needing to replay anything.

Originally Posted by Benedict
Ah cool, think I've just misunderstood you right from the off then, I really couldn't work out what the benefits of being able to play a halfling as well were. Mind you, I've never played one of the little shits anyway, can't trust them.

The level scaling sounds a bit annoying, still early days for me though, I've barely made it through all the origins stories. Has been nice being able to play lots of different characters to get a feel for the game without needing to replay anything.

I guess level scaling affects you depending on your gamestyle. I haven't experienced a problem with it yet, and probably won't, since I just go to an area, do whatever I have to do, and go on, so what I see in an area is what it is.

It seems that my character doesnt really get stronger. Usually, in most game, you have a progression. You start fighting giant rats, bandits with rags and clubs, goblins, kobolds and the difficulty grows in a logical manner. Here you start right away(as a human warrior) by fighting hordes of well equipped soldiers, a knight, a mage… if you can fight all of this at level 2, you would logically be a one-man army at level 15-20 once you become a veteran!

Originally Posted by vanedor
Level scaling is probably my main grip with the game so far.

Not something major but yet, nagging.

It seems that my character doesnt really get stronger. Usually, in most game, you have a progression. You start fighting giant rats, bandits with rags and clubs, goblins, kobolds and the difficulty grows in a logical manner. Here you start right away(as a human warrior) by fighting hordes of well equipped soldiers, a knight, a mage… if you can fight all of this at level 2, you would logically be a one-man army at level 15-20 once you become a veteran!

But on the other hand you'll have people complaining of it being the same as many other RPGs where you start fighting cellar rats. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Originally Posted by JDR13
- Class/Race variety
- Active party size
- Map linearity
- No ability to split party (Can't enter buildings with anything less than entire party.)
- Magic system is simpler, with less spells.
- Inventory system is dumbed down, less realistic.

Yes that's good points showing differences with BG series. Myself I don't think any game have been a BG successor in 2009.

That said I don't consider all are points in favor to BG series:

I don't consider DAO magic system simpler than BG magic system, there's less spell but it is much more subtle and better designed.

I don't consider inventory management in BG was better, the STR importance was rather boring, realism doesn't make gameplay and where is the realism to carry 8 weapons and 3 armors??? DAO system allows a bit less drag&drop management but only a bit less, infinite inventory is missing.

And for splitting party, despite you could not split the party when entering a new area, I used a lot more party splitting in DAO than I ever did in the whole BG series.

For me clearly DAO isn't a successor of BG. But it's the more old school CRPG of the year after CRPG like Avernum and more.

Here a series a design choice that took the opposing view of the mainstream:

Higher difficulty level.

Rarity of fancy or magical weapons and armors.

Rude economy, you won't be able to buy all great items in shops without some cheating.

A lot of design time spend into a careful crafting of each fight.

No random fights or encounters.

More care of performance than to offer shiny environments, DAO performs better than The Witcher, Risen, Gothic 3 and more older release.

Scaling level, that is totally out of the current mainstream but that's the stronger link with the BG series that had a marvelous scaling system, DAO is better in this job than BG1 but BG2 was better in this area than is DAO.

Care to polish the details and design and the magic system instead of trying to increase the features length by multiplying similar or useless spells (Drakensang fails in this wrong approach).

Care to polish the design of few classes instead of increasing the features lists through fake of badly designed classes or false classes, well don't need to look very far, NWN series failed a lot in the temptation of increasing the features list through this.

Even if on many details DAO fails, there's plenty design approach that go back to real values like was doing older games instead of falling in the temptation of easy appeal and features list improved.

For sure with map radar+NPC exclamation marks+Cursors and arrows to follow they also took the worst of the easy appeal approach of modern CRPG. But they deserve the highlight than unlike most games doing the same ugly design, they took a lot of care to design the game so you could play without any of those crap, and even if they failed many time it's still overall a good job in the honor of an older gameplay without all this crap.

That for all those anti mainstream approach and return back to real gameplay values that's I'm so admiring of this blockbuster game. But this game also cumulate an ugly and long list of bad design touch, still overall, the plus is much more important than the minus.

- No ability to split party (Can't enter buildings with anything less than entire party.)

- Magic system is simpler, with less spells.

- Inventory system is dumbed down, less realistic.

Here is the full quote of my original post on the subject. As you can see, I referred to many things, not just classes and races. What I don't understand is why someone would choose to focus on just a single part of my quote, and blatantly ignore the rest when attacking me in another thread. (Not you Dasale )

I don't understand why do you appreciate that much this console-dumbed-down crap that doesn't have anything original. It's basically simplified version of Kotor.

And you start the game with three choices for classes! And the choices couldn't be anymore cliche. The story has already told several times before, even by same developer! And the whole new "fancy" ruleset is just copy-paste D&D rules with everything interesting cut-off.

Anyhow, my main gripe with DA compaired to BG is that it supports multiclasses/hybrids so poorly. I L_O_V_E my 2 handed warrior, but the points that I invest in either the ranged, dual wield or shield paths are completely wasted.

my biggest problem with DAO was the rule set - I did not find it as engrossing as DnD and I did not find it 'subtle' in any way. There was essentially no notion of spell power scaling with level (Shapechange anyone?) - yes I know you had points to put in 'magic stats' but the seemed to have very limited impact (unless you ignored everything else, which I did not - dex seemed important for example). You also suffered disproportionately if you did not follow one of the 'approved' builds. Sorry, despite it's 'complexity' I think DnD rules simply provided far more gameplay opportunities/paths to explore, at least for wizards. I could cast every spell in the DnD spellbook given time and resources. In DAO you get 1 skill per level, and max our around level 20. And those have to be divvied up between class specialization (2/3 wasted right there) and about 35 (?) spells/skills which all had prerequisites so you cannot use any skill if you have spare points. So you ended up using the same tired old tactics again…and again..and again. Sure BG2 is viewed through rose-tinted glasses, but DAO is nowhere near the game I was hoping for. Which is not to say its crap, but it ain't no 'spiritual successor'.

*edit* and in BG2 you could force a chest. Perfectly logical! You are forced to use lock-picking in DAO (and DS for that matter). Your huge fighter, or Shale can't break an itty bitty lock? Come on.